In late September the FBI carried out a series of raids of homes and anti-war offices of public activists in Minneapolis and Chicago. Following the raids the Obama Justice Department subpoenaed 14 activists to a grand jury in Chicago and also subpoenaed the files of several anti-war and community organizations. In carrying out these repressive actions, the Justice department was taking its lead from the Supreme Court’s 6-3 opinion last June in Holder v. the Humanitarian Law Project which decided that non-violent First Amendment speech and advocacy “coordinated with” or “under the direction of” a foreign group listed by the Secretary of State as “terrorist” was a crime.
The search warrants and grand jury subpoenas make it quite clear that the federal prosecutors are intent on accusing public non-violent political organizers, many affiliated with Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO), of providing “material support,” through their public advocacy, for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). The Secretary of State has determined that both the PLFP and the FARC “threaten US national security, foreign policy or economic interests,” a finding not reviewable by the Courts, and listed both groups as foreign terrorist organizations (FTO).
In 1996, Congress made it a crime then punishable by 10 years, later increased to 15 years, to anyone in the U.S. who provides “material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization or attempts or conspires to do so.” The present statute defines “material support or resources” as:
any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial services, lodging training, expert advice or assistance, safe houses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel and transportation except medicine or religious materials.
In the Humanitarian Law Project case, human rights workers wanted to teach members of the Kurdistan PKK, which seeks an independent Kurdish state, and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which sought an independent state in Sri Lanka, how to use humanitarian and international law to peacefully resolve disputes, and to obtain relief from the United Nations and other international bodies for human rights abuses by the governments of Turkey and Sri Lanka. Both organizations were designated as FTOs by the Secretary of State in a closed hearing, in which the evidence is heard secretly.
Despite the non-violent, peacemaking goal of this speech and training, the majority of the Supreme Court nonetheless interpreted the law to make such conduct a crime. Finding a whole new exception to the First Amendment, the Court decided that any support, even if it involves non-violent efforts towards peace, is illegal under the law since it “frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends,” and also helps lend “legitimacy” to foreign terrorist groups. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts, despite the lack of any evidence, further opined that the FTO, could use the human rights law to “intimidate, harass or destruct” its adversaries, and that even peace talks themselves could be used as a cover to re-arm for further attacks. Thus, the Court’s opinion criminalizes efforts by independent groups to work for peace if they in anyway cooperate or coordinate with designated FTOs.
The Court distinguishes what it refers to “independent advocacy” which it finds is not prohibited by the statute, from “advocacy performed in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization, which is for the first time found to be a crime under the statute. The exact line as to where independent advocacy becomes impermissible coordination is left open and vague.
Seizing on this overbroad definition of “material support,” the U.S. government is now moving on political groups and activists who are clearly exercising fundamental First Amendment rights in vocally opposing the government’s branding of foreign liberation movements as terrorist and support their struggles against U.S. backed repressive regimes and illegal occupations.
Under the new definition of “material support,” the efforts of President Jimmy Carter to monitor the elections in Lebanon and coordinate with the political parties there including the designated FTO, Hezbollah, could well be prosecuted as a crime. Similarly, the publication of op-ed articles by FTO spokesmen from Hamas or other designated groups by the New York Times or Washington Post, or the filing by human rights attorneys of amicus briefs arguing against a group’s terrorist designation or the statute itself could also now be prosecuted. Of course, the first targets of this draconian expansion of the material support law will not be a former president or the establishment media, but members of a Marxist organization and vocal opponents of the governments of Israel and Colombia and the U.S. policies supporting these repressive governments.
President Obama in his foreword to the recent autobiography of Nelson Mandela, Conversations with Myself, wrote that “Mandela’s sacrifice was so great that it called upon people everywhere to do what they could on behalf of human progress. [and] . . . [t]he the first time I became politically active was during my college years, when I joined a campaign on behalf of divestment, and the effort to end apartheid in South Africa.” At the time of Mr. Obama’s First Amendment advocacy, Mr. Mandela and his organization the African National Congress (ANC) were denounced as terrorist by the U.S. government. The “material support” law, if in effect back then, would have opened Mr. Obama up to potential criminal prosecution. It is ironic, and the height of hypocrisy, that this same man who speaks with such reverence for Mr. Mandela and recalls his own support for the struggle against apartheid, now allows the Justice Department under his command to criminalize similar First Amendment advocacy against Israeli apartheid and repressive foreign governments.
To provide financial support for the legal expenses those under attack contact: tax deductible checks can be sent to the National Lawyers Guild Foundation. c/o National Lawyers Guild, 132 Nassau St. Room 922, New York, N.Y. 10038
Michael Deutsch is a lawyer with the People's Law Office in Chicago and has been representing political activists and victims of government repression for the past 40 years.
Humanitarian Law Project was directly about material support to the PKK Kurdish rebels in Turkey and the Tamil Tigers. However, the opinion of the court mentions Hamas three times, citing amici briefs from ADL and others.
A few days after the decision, in a debate on it on RT Television, ADL National Chair Robert Sugarman argued in support of the decision. It was obvious from what he said that Hamas was specifically what he had in mind.
Ironic that there is strong circumstantial evidence that the PKK attack on the Turkish naval base in İskenderun (the naval base on the Syrian border from which any Turkish assistance to the Gaza Freedom Flotilla would have come) two hours before the Israeli attack on the Freedom Flotilla has Israeli support. Does that mean they have been furnishing material support to the PKK?
Yeah, thsi will really help resolve the I/P conflict.
Nothing like being an honest broker.
I used to read about the NKVD and Gestapo and say to myself, Phew, glad I didn’t have to live through that!
‘It is ironic, and the height of hypocrisy, that this same man who speaks with such reverence for Mr. Mandela and recalls his own support for the struggle against apartheid, now allows the Justice Department under his command to criminalize similar First Amendment advocacy against Israeli apartheid and repressive foreign governments.’
With all due respect, anyone who runs for the imperial US presidency is by definition a megalomaniacal sociopath.
Hypocrisy does not concern such people, as they lack the normally functioning conscience that you and I have.
The laws you cite confirm that the US has long since become a repressive police state.
The National Lawyers Guild certainly deserves our support. But in all seriousness, I’d rather deliver a gift of anonymous cash (during these last years while it remains legal) to 132 Nassau St., rather than incriminate myself with a check. You’re aware, of course, that financial privacy was outlawed by the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970.
Peace Laureate O’Bomber talks a hollow liberal game, but his Injustice Department imposes the same iron repression as the Bush regime did.
“Peace Laureate O’Bomber talks a hollow liberal game, but his Injustice Department imposes the same iron repression as the Bush regime did.”
Is everyone now just discovering this? Does anyone know why there is ostensibly no difference? It is because both administrations (and all of the previous ones) do not serve the American people, they serve moneyed interest and power of the few.
You have two choices here, you can either try to ferret out your same repetitive views that some “foreign entity” is making the poor government act this way, or this is the way the government (no matter what administration) has always acted toward elite interest.
I guess I should be satisfied with the designation of no difference between the Bush and Obama administration, and probably would be if I did not know the truth – that this is ALWAYS how this government has functioned. I just don’t have time nor the desire to give a history recitation, and it seems to be absolutely worthless in this venue.
Perhaps you will take a hint from the broad application of the the poster (I doubt it), that this is part and parcel of the so-called “war on terror.” However, from the responses to the posts I see you are going to narrow it down to “the snake in the garden of Eden” theory, rather than understanding that the Israeli brand of “terrorists” is tied into the whole which is addressed by the US all over the world – “the U.S. policies supporting these repressive governments.” The US has been supporting repressive governments since its inception, it just has a new pet theme now of so-called “terrorism.”
Can we try to turn this law on its head and go after AIPAC, ADL and their ilk for their support of one of the main terrorist regimes in the Middle East?
Americangoy: No. Because everything hinges on who gets on the State Department’s terrorist list. The groups/states on the list are determined and put there by unelected people in a back room where sun does not shine. Such activity can be and always is effectively sheltered by the mask of “national security/defense.” In short, it’s entirely a political matter. Although there have been groups taken off the official sh** list, and others added, just look at how AIPAC’s predecessor avoided the sh** list in fact by morphing through the device of corporate name change and disconnecting from direct lineal
funding by the foreign state of Israel as a response to the Kennedy brothers who’s lives were cut short in a conviently short coincidence of timing.
The new US law, an attack on basic civil rights under the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment based on a finding of indirectly freeing up resources that “may” be put to violent use within any any group/state on the sh** list and/or tending to “legitimize” such group, is an invitation to dilute America’s core Constitutional values. Where and when does still intact/legally permissible Constitutional “independent advocacy” become impermissible and illegal coordination with any group or entity on the official sh** list? Anytime a gift of a block of cheese or a prayer rug could theoretically be traded for a box of bullets. Or whenever a plea to give cheese is followed in time with the appearance of more bandoleers across the chest of a self-described “freedom fighter”, or a dated receipt or computer entry for the purchase of said bandoleers. When glaringly obvious state terrorism, such as Israel’s OP Cast Lead, is treated as a dreidel toy by the US government, and Iran, a nation of 70 million people who have not launched a war in hundreds of years, is fiscally and economically blockaded and constantly threatened with war by the US government because it desires to defend itself, it seems obvious the writing is on the wall. That’s the wall inside where our betters decide who’s on their sh** list. We will get to pay for it all, in every way, as will our children, and their children.
Here, you can check out who’s been on and off the other sh** list for state-sponsored terrorism–note Iraq particularly and you can see a pattern: link to en.wikipedia.org
The first box of US Senate archives related to designating the American Zionist Council as the agent of a foreign state has been declassified very recently and opened to the public: link to irmep.org
if advocacy for Palestinians and for better US – Iran relations can become interpreted as supporting terrorism, then instead of taking the positive approach, the fight will have to be taken directly to the AGAINST position — more and more and intensified speech against Israel and zionism.
Holder’s Justice Department is FORCING more vocally anti-Israel and anti-zionist activism.
Game on.
The PKK is already on the State Department’s list. So, if it can be shown that Israel has been providing material support to the PKK — like for the attack on the naval base at İskenderun — doesn’t that automatically mean that Israel — and presumably by extension those providing material support to Israel — have violated the material support statute?
“Conveniently short coincidence of timing” indeed.
The reactor at Dimona went critical on Dec. 26, 1963.
I suppose this is Barack Obama and Eric Holder “Looking Forward.”
Wait a second, why is it Holder v. the Humanitarian Law Project?
Why not U.S. v. the Humanitarian Law Project?
Did Eric Holder personally sue the project? Shouldn’t the office of the AG have filed the lawsuit?
I think the Humanitarian Law Project were the plaintiffs. They were suing the government.
And I believe the order of the parties Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project reflects the fact that the government was appealing a judgment for the plaintiffs in the courts below.
Wow! And we thought the Bush Administration was bad. You know, of course, where this is all leading to? There are “behind-the-scenes forces”, namely Israel’s proxies preparing to derail a BDS global movement against Israeli Apartheid. The Canadian government is close to criminalizing criticism of Israel and policing the internet and now this. Anyone notice a dangerous trend here?
So what we should all do is lobby the government to declare the Israeli settler movement a terrorist organization, so that millionaires like Moskowitz, Adelson, Leviev, Saban and others could end up in prison for funding illegal settlements spawned by a terrorist organization which is derailing the peace process.
But we all know why this will never happen and why Israel can get away with “murder”, don’t we?
Yes, kalithea, that’s exactly where it’s going. Just try to ferret out who works for the State Department’s Terrorist Designations Unit. If the US puts BDS on the terrorist sh** list, I think only Canada will join that effort and put BDS on its sh** list; there’s a pattern to the various group terrorist sh*t* lists of the states in the world. Depends on each state regime’s political view of who’s a freedom fighter and who’s the devil incarnate.
Here’s Israel’s (ADL’s) current terrorist sh** list respecting the USA:
Act Now to Stop War and End Racism
Al-Awda
Council on American-Islamic
Relations
Friends of Sabeel-North America
If Americans Knew
International Solidarity Movement
Jewish Voice for Peace
Muslim American Society
Students for Justice in Palestine
US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation
well if this law was used honestly to oppose true terrorism it would make illegal to send money to Israel
Not related directly, but to spread some sunshine today, I note that our State Department chief, Ms Hillary Clinton is meeting with Mr Netanyahu today.
Stay tuned. I imagine he will inform her that Jerusalem is not a settlement and what’s going on there is just an internal Israeli administration issue, and that in any case Israel will be keeping troops and their hardware along any future Palestinian state borders. That’s just the way it is, and will be. The UN does not count. And if Obama seeks peace process to start he better come up with a bigger package for America’s bestest friend in the wide world. Not to worry, Hillary will stand on her thick legs; she’s up to his challenge–same as VP Chicklets, and our fearless leader, Mr B “Cairo” Obama himself.
Isn’t Canada’s Parliament currently working with the Israel Lobby to make criticism of Israel a crime?
>> It is ironic, and the height of hypocrisy, that this same man [Obama] who speaks with such reverence for Mr. Mandela and recalls his own support for the struggle against apartheid, now allows the Justice Department under his command to criminalize similar First Amendment advocacy against Israeli apartheid and repressive foreign governments.
Obama is well-educated, well-spoken, hollow and fraudulent. It’s no wonder “humanists” still admire him.